Why do so many people dislike Gladiator? (1 Viewer)

[Tom-G]

Steeve, please elaborate! There is nothing wrong with having an opinion.

 

[RobR]

Ya, sure.

Would you suggest it wouldn't have anything to do with the possibilty that an English-speaking director could direct a film more effectively in English? Do you feel the movies of this thread's genre, namely Ben Hur, Braveheart, Spartacus, and Gladiator, should've been filmed in languages other than English? Do you think Wyler, Gibson, Kubrick, and Scott had a genuine concern for their boxoffice draw?

 

[Terrell]

Can't comment Matt. I've officially bowed out.

 

[Steeve Bergeron]

Steeve, please elaborate! There is nothing wrong with having an opinion.

Well, Gladiator won 5 Oscars. And I agree with all of them! So, I guess it's not that bad after all.

 

[Brian_J]

Do you think Wyler, Gibson, Kubrick, and Scott had a genuine concern for their boxoffice draw?

If a director doesn't he won't be a director for long. Still, I think most directors figure that if they like something a certain way then an audience will also like it.

Brian

 

[RobR]

There's a difference between having a "genuine concern" for his or her box office draw as Marc put it and striving to make the best possible film. Kubrick was a director for a damn long time without being preoccupied with such a concern.

 

[Steve Clark]

I know noone outside of this forum who dislikes Gladiator. Great movies such as Gladiator strike a balance between a high level of quality and a high level of entertainment. Not many movies achieve this, but this one pulled it off. This is what I think the Academy saw in this movie. Who said the most meaningful movie is to win the Oscar? Save that one for theatre class. The whole movie was about powerful themes (power, politics, betrayal, loyalty, redemption, revenge, love, war, ancient culture to name a couple). The fighting scenes were just secondary to the underlying themes. In fact, when I saw this movie, I was surprised how little fighting there actually was in this film.

This movie did not take the easy way out. It was more than just an action flick. I thought many of the longer, drawn out scenes set up the powerful and appropriate ending and is the reason the movie won the statue. This movie could have chosen an easy feel good ending, but if it had, no Oscar. The gladiator style combat scenes did not do it for me. What made this movie great to me was the story of Maximus: his tragedy and fall; the impending fate and doom; and the final resolution and redemption that was bestowed upon him.

I believe Crowe became the top actor in the business with this role. Russell Crowe is not a hunk actor. He is an intelligent actor who compares with the finest actors of the past decade such as Ralph Fiennes and Daniel Day Lewis. He brings a seriousness and an edge to a roll not seen since Robert DeNiro. It would have been very easy to overact in this kind of roll (see Charleton Heston in the Ten Commandments) but he did not.

Finally, let’s not forget that Gladiator received 12 nominations and won a handful. This is the movie that will be remembered from the year 2000, not Traffic and not CTHD.

 

[Bill J]

I know noone outside of this forum who dislikes Gladiator.

I find that hard to believe. I actually know more people outside of the forum who dislike Gladiator than HTF members who dislike it.

 

[RobR]

Finally, let’s not forget that Gladiator received 12 nominations and won a handful.

That means absolutely nothing.

 

[RobR]

By the way, I thought Russell Crowe gave a far superior performance in The Insider, yet he was won Best Actor for his role in Gladiator? Or maybe it's just the movie?

 

[Dave Barth]

This style is to set the camera too close to the action, quick-cutting to the point of total incomprehensibility and a generally confusing feel, possibly due to over-use of CGI and dropped frames.

.
Is it Spartacus? No. Was it still a fairly good film that appealed to a wide cross section of the Academy and the populace at large? Apparently so. Does that make it worth of a Best Picture Oscar? I wouldn't have voted for it myself, but I wasn't disappointed that it won.

 

[Paul_D]

I need to be educated on something. I simply don't understand how someone (I won't name names) can enter a thread about criticising a film and defend it on such basic points as its originality and the quality of its script, when it would be plain to a monkey, that the plot is unoriginal to the fullest extent, and that the script is shallow, weak, simple, uninventive, poor, crap etc...... I mean, I'm sitting here scrathcing my head, trying to figure this one out. How could someone do this?
I found Gladiator very entertaining, technically I thought it was excellent (including the cgi which though certainly heavy-handed, didn't bother me), and taking previous winners into account, it was the obvious choice for Best Picture last year. But IMO its absolutely undeniable that it isn't more than an entertaining popcorn flick. I understand that people have different standards (and that isn't a snobbish comment, i.e. i'm not implying that the standards of some of us in this thread are higher or better than others', but surely there should exist standard, universally accepted definitions of 'unoriginal' and 'shallow script'?
And just briefly, responding to something from the beginning of the thread, for me the idea of Unbreakable coming any where near any kind of award would be a sign of the apocalypse. It's crap.

 

[Greg_Y]

Who said the most meaningful movie is to win the Oscar? Save that one for theatre class.

I don't understand this mentality: "The best movie of the year should be the one that entertains you the most, not the one which has the most relevance to your life." ???

I enjoy films for both reasons. Some are just visceral enterainment; some are personal and moving. Some of the best films have both qualities. (Personal aside: I think Kubrick was able to do this, which is why he's one of my favorite directors.) But to say "forget about the artsy-fartsy stuff" when it comes to doling out the awards is ridiculous. That's what you seem to be saying. That's what the Oscars seem to do.

An honest question: does Gladiator have any relevance to your life other than the themes of honor, courage, and other manly-man stuff? Do you think that Gladiator presents these themes any better than other epics?

 

[TheoGB]

I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was everything that only a movie can be: impressive effects (yes they were good and I can't believe someone suggested The Perfect Storm had better); nicely coreographed action; beautiful camerawork.
Yep the script wasn't that deep but then few movies are. I thought the acting was good and what I would expect. If you want decent acting and cerebral scripts that's what the theatre is for - it's worth taking some trips there.
I think editing of the movie was a mistake. It's hardly an epic because it only lasts about 2 hours (as I remember) and I think Scott was wrong to remove almost all of the deleted scenes from the film that we find on the DVD.
Finally, I cannot believe anyone cares about the Oscars. Not only because, as has been pointed out, they are Hollywood patting themselves on the back, but because we have seen time after time that the big winners aren't remembered if they're not classics, so where's the problem?

 

[Steeve Bergeron]

That means absolutely nothing.

Yes it means something. Do you know what it means?
It means that Gladiator isn't as bad as you think it is! Of course, it's not Spartacus or Ben-Hur, but that doesn't make it a bad movie.

 

[Paul_D]

Finally, I cannot believe anyone cares about the Oscars. Not only because, as has been pointed out, they are Hollywood patting themselves on the back, but because we have seen time after time that the big winners aren't remembered if they're not classics, so where's the problem?

Well stated.
Regarding the topic header. Anything that receives broad recognition is gonna have an in-built anti-fan base, because some people like to be on the fringe. They like to be anti-popular. Every year there is inevitably a group who denounce the big winner. I think the case of Gladiator is very close to Titanic. I don't think you would've found anyone on Titanic's opening weekend that said they didn't like it. But as the weeks rolled by, and the tears dried and the spectacle faded away, what were we left with? A big, sap-covered romantic melodrama with a terribly cheesy script and a good-leading actor reduced to a teenager's bedroom-wall poster for fanboys to endlessly ridicule. AND a Celine Dion song to boot.
The backlash to Titanic is similar to that of Gladiator, and will be the same as all the future empty oscar winners: at first when it comes out it will be enjoyed and praised for its technical merits and overall enjoyability, and then as critical acclaim build it up bigger than it is, and the Oscars (which are universally, though unjustly, known as marks of supreme quality) roll in, anti-fans all over the world will start arguing over how crap it is, when all they're really doing is arguing over the fact that the Academy Awards reward crowd-pleasing money-makers, over the most complex, achievements in film, every single year.
Rant over.

 

[Matt Stone]

Jeez...so now the Academy dictates how good films are. If you want to discuss the Academy's relevency...start another thread...let's stay on topic with a critical analysis of Gladiator. But if you do say that the Academy rewarded Gladiator with 12 noms because it was a good film, then the film industry has become "an industry of cool"

Yep the script wasn't that deep but then few movies are.

You should go out and see more films. Plenty of movies have deep plots and great acting. It's not like I'm telling you that you're wrong for liking Gladiator, I'm not some fascist...but saying that Gladiator was the best film of the year is a strech, a real strech.
Also, I too know many that aren't big fan's of Gladiator outside the HTF. The friends that I originally saw it with loved it (as did I), but were blown out of the water when it was nominated for BP and subsequently won. This isn't just an HTF thing...

 

[TheoGB]

I was being slightly tongue-in-cheeck with that movie depth thing but I was thinking in terms of the number of movies made. Of course there are movies with great depth of script and dialogue that make you think (like Fight Club) but I don't think it's worth moaning about a thin script because a script is what you make of it.
Memento has an incredibly thin plot (watch it forwards to be sure) but it's a great movie (IMO) and I bet in the opinions of many of the people here slagging off Gladiator.
Fact is we aren't having this discussion about The Matrix. Why? Probably because (a) it didn't win oscars which is probably partly down to (b) it is Sci-Fi and there for it's assumed that is must be shallow.
Part of the problem is that Hollywood used to love historical epics. Since Gladiator is in the hostorical mould it gets laid into for actually just being good fun. And since it's not Sci-Fi it is allowed to win best picture despite that.

 

[Bill J]

By the way, I thought Russell Crowe gave a far superior performance in The Insider, yet he was won Best Actor for his role in Gladiator?

I agree with you 100% on that. I've always thought he won for the wrong performance.

 

[Matt Stone]

Me too...thought it was a make-up call giving him the win for Gladiator.